The Lab Report

        The purpose of this experiment is to evaluate the performance of the subject as "a student go-getter".

        The subject is a healthy, single, male student at the height of his youth, with untapped potentials.

        The objectives of the experiment are to calculate the efficiency at which he regurgitate formulas at any given exam time, to measure the degree of freedom at which he does homework without the use of elements from the right brain (i.e. creativity, aesthetics and intuitiveness), and to recalibrate the social barometer at which he functions to that of the standard, regulated by the Committee of Moral Authority.

        The experiment is done in a closed environment of expensive textbooks, expensive tuition and student fees, expensive 2-bedroom apartment rent, and very surprisingly cheap (sweatshop-produced) University paraphernalia. The subject is nourished with a steady diet of candy bar brunch (no solid food was allowed until after the 8:00 AM 2-hour lecture), French fries lunch, microwave dinner and a late night supper of Oreos and warm milk at 2 in the morning. Clean clothing is optional, and so is the morning bath. Part-time job at the library as a book-cart pusher or at the University hospital as a vaginosis discharge cleanup worker is highly encouraged (although not insured). Life outside school is forbidden, and this rule is specifically enforced during the weekends leading to the finals or the end of the semester. Interactions with the opposite sex is limited to only a need-to-masturbate basis or when a coed group project is given.

        The runs done were as follow:
         Run #1 (Varying Wakeup Time, Constant Class Schedule)
         Run #2 (Varying Meal Time, Constant Class Schedule)
         Run #3 (Varying Weather, Constant Class Schedule)
         Run #4 (Varying Bus Schedule, Constant Class Schedule)
         Run #5 (Varying Workload, Constant Class Schedule)
         Run #6 (Special Study: Illness During Final Exam Week)
         Run #7 (Special Study: Procrastination and Late Homework)
         Run #8 (Special Study: Bitchy, Lazy, Stupid Group Members)

        Observations respective to the runs are as shown below:

        Run #1: Irritation level fluctuated with various wakeup time. Affective to mood and eating schedule. Slow response time to questions asked in class and in discussion session. Difficulty in maintaining minimum level of concentration in routine, simple activities (such as taking down lecture notes, identifying classroom door and targeting for the center of the pisshole while pissing).

        Run#2: Subject found to be more alert, despite being less enthusiastic. Often observed to be staring into the disappearing lines of the horizon with his hands clutching the belly button. Repeatedly produced horrifying stomach sounds in the middle of lecture, in which at the face of humiliating detection by other classmates, the subject acted efficiently like nothing had happened.

        Run #3: Behavior and mood depended highly on the weather. Summer: the subject was more casual, lazy and was observed to have a general increase in appetite. Winter: the subject was less than enthusiastic to go and brave the cold, higher chance of depression and illness, gained a significant amount of weight, despite having less appetite compared to during the summer.

        Run #4: After several attempts at convincing the subject to take the bus to school, especially during winter, it was observed that he preferred to walk instead, due to several initial bad experiences (i.e. sat next to a talkative homeless person, a Mormon missionary, an old black lady sleeping on his shoulder, accidentally paid using Canadian quarters, pants stained by sitting on chewed chewing gum, beer vomit, spilled cola and dried dog poop).

        Run #5: Increase in class workload was found to be proportional to the amplitude of fluctuation of wakeup time; heavier workload per week produced higher chance of waking up late or not sleeping at all. Irritation level increased as well, with a list of side effects such as: higher tendency for procrastination, skipping other lower-credit classes, overall decrease in motivation, sociability and personal hygiene. Of all runs done, the workload factor affected the subject most severely, academically, socially and spiritually.

        Run #6: Despite initial theoretical predictions, an illness provided a level of comfort for the subject, who saw it as a blessing in disguise and/or a great escape from the routine. Began worrying about making-up the exam as soon as the illness began to subside, although had not started much amount of make-up studying, even days prior to the exam. Found to be more jovial, optimist and talkative, despite severity of illness. To quote the subject, "Sickness is never a bad excuse for anything."

        Run #7: Run #7 was so obvious, the subject felt insulted by the team of experimenters and refused to participate in the study. It was decided to do Run #7 last, in the hope that there would be time later to convince the subject once more. But in the excitement of completing Run #8, none of us experimenters remembered to do it. (This mistake was just realized when writing this section of the lab report).

        Run #8: A simulated coed group was created with a selected list of group members volunteering for the study, and with the subject, they were given the task of designing a simple chemical reaction on an industrial continuous-scale that will produce a product stream of 99.9% propylene glycol from a feedstock inlet of refined raw sugar. Halfway through the study, the subject began to show signs of stress, mental and physical exhaustions, and a general dislike for human contact, especially towards American classmates.


        Therefore, the conclusions are: [1] that the subject behaved irrationally whenever any of the factors studied above is changed drastically and/or dropped off from the equation without him being able to slowly adapt to that said change, [2] that the subject was at his best to regurgitate what he has learned (read: memorized blindly) in an exam when the highest amount of decent normalcy in his daily routine is maintained (i.e. morning shower, a warm dinner, clean clothes, etc.), [3] that the subject was at his best to express himself, intellectually and articulately, when the least amount of rules and restrictions were imposed on his work, [4] that the subject was not strongly in opposition to the socio-academic standards applied by the social structure as long as he was given the choice to enjoy the small things in life and a degree of freedom at which he was still able to express himself as a distinct individual in society.

        We, the experimenters, recommend that the education system is to be revised; from being an institution that is instructive and father-knows-best to one that provides guidance and nurture for the young minds to freely, but reasonably, pave their own future.

        That, or more funding for extensive research.